The Difference Between Science and the Religious

While science has been ever-expanding in its knowledge of how everything works, religion has stuck with the same tired, ridiculous story throughout
the history of mankind.

The following is a conversation between religion and science that has been going on since man first walked on the earth.

Religion: God is in that volcano and requires a human sacrifice.
Science: No, a volcano is lava that gets so hot it explodes out of the earth.
Religion: Okay, but god created the volcanoes on this great flat earth of ours.
Science: Sorry, the earth is round.
Religion: Okay, but god created this round earth that is the center of the universe.
Science: No again. The earth is but a mere speck of dust floating on the fringe of just one galaxy amidst billions of galaxies.
Religion: Well, god created those galaxies long before he created the first man out of dust.
Science: Sorry, man evolved from a single cell into a complex organism, and it took billions of years for us to become what we are today.
Religion: You just remember, Science, that god has punished us with plagues in the past, and he's not afraid to do it again!
Science: Well, actually, those plagues were caused by viruses and we've been pretty good at developing ways to stop them. Listen, Religion, from the
very beginning you have been wrong about EVERYTHING. Isn't it time for you to come up with even a sliver of proof that your god actually exists?
Religion: We don't need proof. You just need to have faith.
Science: Fine. Enjoy your so-called faith. We're heading out to discover how the universe and the first living thing came into existence.
Religion: Ha! There's no need to try to understand these things, because god did it.
Science:

Come on, isn't it time put away your god stories and put the bible in the fiction section of bookstores?

I don't know where to start with this. You think science and religion are forever separate. You have no respect for the wonders and mysteries of the
universe. You think there's no intelligence to ANY of this. You would rather see the entire world reduced to numbers than enjoy a simple sunset and
not think about what's causing the colors.

So what's your point? Give up religion and rely on cold logic? Well, there's no reason not to kill you then. My goal is survival, you have resources,
my life is obviously more central to me then yours is. Oh well. That's what logic does.

That's what I get from this. Cold hard systematic methodical 0's and 1's. There's no joy in that. I don't want to live for science, I want to live for
understanding. And that includes understanding when to let science go and just EXPERIENCE. Is that too much for you?

The only difference between science and religion is the method in which they derive their conclusions.

If one needs the supersensory world to find value in himself, maybe because he fears being reduced to an organic machine, we find a human unable to
find value in the very composition of himself and the world around him, and must contrive other-worldly ideas in which he can begin to stand the sight
of himself.

It is strange how science and religion can maintain both a bridge and barrier for one another. Science could begin where religion ends and vice versa
to some degree, both being languages that describe the complexity and simplicity of life. I like the bridge notion, as long as it brings ideas
together and results in progress or benevolence.
Perhaps ultimately life could function as both, if religion remains open ended, but that is where the problem lies. Dogma and individual's
interpretation creates restrictions(barriers). Here is a vid illustrating this:

Personally, I am one that considers spirituality real, and with the emerging studies/advances of quantum field science, including consciousness, a
genuine "oneness" can be seen, that, imo, can be described as both godly and scientific. But when religion becomes non inclusive, the tie is cut, and
the light dims. I can appreciate the denial of god and religion, but I also see the similarities as well as differences.
The bible? Yea the promotion of it as the word of god and absolute, is destructive and divisive, imo.

“The old, confident distinction between materiality and non-materiality is not a thing modern science can endorse…modern physics and cosmology
are conspicuous by their absence from the arguments of these self-declared champions of science, reason and enlightenment.” (p. 112-113, ix-x)

“Religion is a point of entry for certain anthropological methods and assumptions whose tendencies are distinctly invidious. It is treated as a
proof of persisting primitivity…a hermeneutics of condescension.” (p. 14)

“If the Christianity [Bertrand] Russell loathes is the Christianity he encountered, then that is a form in which the religion has lived in the
world. Others have encountered other Christianities. This is one more instance of the universe of difficulties that surrounds a definition of one
religion, not to mention religion as a whole.” (p. 12)

“There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.” (p. 12)
–Bertrand Russell, 1927

“I have no opinion about the likelihood that science, at the top of its bent, will ultimately arrive at accounts of consciousness, identity, memory,
and imagination that are sufficient in the terms of scientific inquiry. Nor do I object, in our present very limited state of knowledge, to hypotheses
being offered in the awareness that, in the honorable tradition of science, they are liable to being proved grossly wrong. What I wish to question are
not the methods of science, but the methods of a kind of argument that claims the authority of science or highly specialized knowledge, that assumes a
protective coloration that allows it to pass for science yet does not practice the self-discipline or self-criticism for which science is
distinguished.”

How can we deny the power of the mind, Robinson asks, when we consider remarkable scientific discoveries? How can we deny experience? Why continue
to insist on selfishness and untrustworthiness as fundamental aspects of being human? "Each of us lives intensely within herself or himself,
continuously assimilating past and present experience to a narrative and vision that are unique in every case yet profoundly communicable, whence the
arts. And we all live in a great reef of collective experience…The schools of thought I have criticized exclude the great fact of human
exceptionalism, though no one would deny that it is a pure expression of the uniqueness of the human brain." Surely, Robinson argues, there is room in
our vast imagination to "acknowledge some small fragment of the mystery we are."

Robinson explores that old irritant in the flesh of positivists — altruism. She argues that the inability of most parascientists to adequately
explain why humans share information and help each other exemplifies not only the blindness of modernists but also their assertion that humans are
basically selfish and unreliable. The idea, according to E.O. Wilson, that the " brain is a machine assembled not to understand itself, but to
survive," she writes, means that the mind, "unaided by factual knowledge from science sees the world only in little pieces. It throws a spotlight on
those portions of the world it must know in order to live to the next day, and surrenders the rest to darkness." This suggests, to Robinson, that
Wilson believes in science "as a kind of magic, as if it existed apart from history and culture, rather than being, in objective truth and inevitably,
their product." The mind is little more than a "passive conduit"— "our minds are not our own."

But positivism and modernist thought have had
the opposite effect: They encourage the "exclusion of felt life": We are discouraged from making explanations about our place in the universe.
Subjectivity is not allowed; instead, there is what Robinson calls an "absence of mind." This is, she writes, one of the reasons why modernist thought
and parascientific literature so often include polemics against religion. "The physical universe, as it is known to us now, is not accessible to the
strategies of comprehension that once seemed so exhaustively useful to us." Along with a "sterilized and occluded mind," she writes, comes a
"missionary zeal, an impatient need to enlist believers."

She is annoyed by the arrogance of modernist thought, which has entrapped us for so
many generations: "After Darwin, after Nietzsche, after Freud, after structuralism and post-structuralism, after Crick and Watson and the death of
God, some assumptions were to be regarded as fixed and inevitable and others as exposed for all time and for all purposes as naïve and
untenable."

I do get that the old religious dogmas are outdated and I would not mind all Abrahamic religions spending a few years not preaching until they frankly
understood what Jesus said and even Genesis said but it can be my ego viewpoint talking and I might be wrong.

From my point of view: Humans eat of the apple of duality, creates and ego and viewpoints from that ego and start to tell everybody else that they are
wrong if they do not think like that individual human. You lost the connection with community and nature and the ability to feel the oneness bliss
(coming from exernal source) that your bodies could feel if they where working as intended.

There are people who feels something different in their body and have spiritual experiances. A truth seeker will seek everywhere that he/she feels
like exploring without letting people around him/her decide where to seek and will come to conclusion based on experiances.

I think that one day scientist will be able to explain synchronicity and physical body change due to spiritual experiances. When they do that humanity
will change since it will not need religion anymore since scientist have quantified how to spiritually evolve a human without any faith. What I would
not give to have 10000 scientist and spiritual people working around the clock to finally free humanity from limited understanding of these
experiances so that we would not have to listen to more or less blind priest preaching to the blind.

I don't know where to start with this. You think science and religion are forever separate. You have no respect for the wonders and mysteries of the
universe. You think there's no intelligence to ANY of this. You would rather see the entire world reduced to numbers than enjoy a simple sunset and
not think about what's causing the colors.

So what's your point? Give up religion and rely on cold logic? Well, there's no reason not to kill you then. My goal is survival, you have resources,
my life is obviously more central to me then yours is. Oh well. That's what logic does.

That's what I get from this. Cold hard systematic methodical 0's and 1's. There's no joy in that. I don't want to live for science, I want to live for
understanding. And that includes understanding when to let science go and just EXPERIENCE. Is that too much for you?

edit on 2-12-2012 by
AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I find no need to "believe" in a religion but I also have no desire to kill people. I love to watch a beautiful sunset, and get a buzz out of
something as simple as a bunch of cicadas flying from one tree to another. I laugh at the "personality" of my son's brainless 2 year old malamute and
I adore my beautiful wife. All of those wonderful experiences without the need to "believe" in some omnipotent pretenting friend "making them
happen". so to me, your point is moot

i think science dropped the ball on virus's. if we would have left well enough alone, sure more people would die, but virus's wouldnt be mutating
and becoming stronger and faster. in the end science is just setting us up for a super virus to kill billions at once instead of a smaller more
spread out death toll.

For myself, me, personally, there isn't a great disconnect between religion and science. I took a degree in Chemistry and a minor in math and
physics, so you know where my thoughts roam, however, it seems to me that religion and science -- for the most part -- are different languages that
speak of similar phenomena.

How long is a "God-year"? Well, I don't know. I'm not sure it can even be quantified. What I do know is that I believe that various
creatures squirmed up from the primordial ooze into higher developed creatures, which lead to even more developed creatures -- through the vagarities
of natural selection and infrequent mutations -- ........... to ................... us. We are not the pinnacle. We are the plateau. I
believe there is something above and outside of our awareness, but I don't know what to call it.

i think science dropped the ball on virus's. if we would have left well enough alone, sure more people would die, but virus's wouldnt be mutating
and becoming stronger and faster. in the end science is just setting us up for a super virus to kill billions at once instead of a smaller more
spread out death toll.

Really? Just like that? Just gonna throw that out there, without substantiating or justifying such a cruel statement?

Allow me to inform you with a little bit of reasoning. As much as the more zealous of the religious sects might hate the rest of humanity, there's a
certain point at which they draw the line. Even if the government drops a viral bomb and blames it on a religious group, I doubt mass murder is the
agenda of any Christian or Catholic or Baptist or Mormon or Judaic or Abrahamic religion. See, what are the chances that innocent people will die?
Brothers and sisters? Priests? Clergymen? Children? It's guaranteed. Viruses do not discriminate - if it's viable, it's game. What self-respecting
Christian would take the chance of destroying that many of their "family"? Not even a chance, a guarantee. A miniature Armageddon, launched upon
their own church. You think they'd do that? I wonder exactly how biased or prejudiced your ideas are. I get the feeling they are more emotion based
than anything else.

Let's swing to the other end of that. If the religious are potentially so free-handed with viral weaponry, then what about atheists? They have no
reason to believe in an afterlife, or judgment, or any kind of universal law in regard to ethics. Anything along that line is man-made. Purely the
product of humankind. They could use that as an argument toward the idea that this makes the human race weak, unwilling to seize power and wield it
effectively. The weak deserve to die, they would say, and I deserve to live because I have seized my potential. I have taken power, and I am ready to
stand up and claim my place. I have earned it, and if they won't join me, then they will die. When it comes down to survival and cold logic, it's
eat or be eaten. And if you don't get out of the way, you're going down. And maybe even that won't satisfy them. Maybe every last human must bow to
the master of viral weaponry. Maybe they will want to be a god instead. Maybe they will want to feel the power of ruling the world, of having
everything they want with a word. But then they realize that there's no longer any challenge, and they decide to play. They decide to host the Hunger
Games, or they decide to change viral weaponry and design a superrace, a line of superhumans who are virally programmed to obey their master.

See where this goes? One has a god, the other doesn't. There is something to reign in the one, but nothing to reign in the other. And even if the one
with the god becomes warped, their creativity is limited by the Bible. Nothing limits an atheist's creativity. If they think of it, and they like
it...need I say more?

So yeah. The religious are likely to use viral weaponry? I just showed you how atheists have no reason to quail at the prospect of mutating this
world, turning this earth into a stomping ground for slaves and monsters. Any morals are purely a product of their personal character. Atheists have
no spiritual tether. And because of that, they are free to rule as they please. I'm not saying they will. I am NOT saying that. I am saying that if
it comes down to it, it's a distinct possibility.

Maybe, next time, you'll think instead of haphazardly pointing fingers and saying, "The religious people are gonna be terrorists!" No. If anyone
has a reason to resist the dark side of human nature, it's the religious folk.

And all you religious people, should the time come when you have all the power, I implore that you remember this. The true test of power is how you
judge those around you.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Really? Just like that? Just gonna throw that out there, without substantiating or justifying such a cruel statement?

That's just how I operate. I got a lot of truth out of you.

Allow me to inform you with a little bit of reasoning. As much as the more zealous of the religious sects might hate the rest of humanity,
there's a certain point at which they draw the line.

That line only exists when it's in their best interest.

I doubt mass murder is the agenda of any Christian or Catholic or Baptist or Mormon or Judaic or Abrahamic religion.

Mass murder is an option for the extremists within each of those organizations.
Atheists included but they would be less inclined

See, what are the chances that innocent people will die? Brothers and sisters? Priests? Clergymen? Children? It's guaranteed. Viruses do not
discriminate - if it's viable, it's game.

To the person who could push the button, none of that matters.

What self-respecting Christian would take the chance of destroying that many of their "family"?
Not even a chance, a guarantee. A miniature Armageddon, launched upon their own church.

That's the heart of the idea though. No Self-respecting human being would even begin to think such a thing.
I wasn't targeting Christians specifically but any religion that has used violence as a means to an end.

Especially someone who would believe that God could sanction such an act.
Religions are where the idea of Apocalypse comes from.

You think they'd do that? I wonder exactly how biased or prejudiced your ideas are. I get the feeling they are more emotion based than
anything else.

I do. I was being subjective. Objectively, a human could push the button but i'm more inclined to believe that they would be religious due to the
tensions between them.

If the religious are potentially so free-handed with viral weaponry, then what about atheists?

There is no evidence for either side.

They have no reason to believe in an afterlife, or judgment, or any kind of universal law in regard to ethics.

That would be more of a reason they would not use it. 1 life to live.
I have a high sense of morality with no reason to believe in judgement.
I am no more inclined to kill with viral weaponry then a peaceful Christian.
Religion has nothing to do with THAT.
What religion does have to do with this is that it creates the divisions necessary to use such a weapon.

Anything along that line is man-made. Purely the product of humankind. They could use that as an argument toward the idea that this makes the
human race weak, unwilling to seize power and wield it effectively.

You sound like Vegeta

That's a cultural idea. In our Centrist society that just doesn't fly.

The weak deserve to die, they would say, and I deserve to live because I have seized my potential. I have taken power, and I am ready to stand
up and claim my place. I have earned it, and if they won't join me, then they will die. When it comes down to survival and cold logic, it's eat or
be eaten. And if you don't get out of the way, you're going down.

Those are the types of people that are being fought by people like us daily, whether subtly or directly.

I'll answer your second half later or tomorrow when I have more time.
I can't put as much detail into my ideas as i'd like, yours was very well thought out.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Well, there's no reason not to kill you then. My goal is survival, you have resources, my life is obviously more central to me then yours is. Oh
well. That's what logic does.

Your statement has to be the most ignorant I have ever read. It is man, not religion or any god, that developed the survival technique of cooperation.
You don't kill my people and my people won't kill your people. You don't steal from me, and I don't steal from you. I guess your bloodline skipped
that part of evolution.

Your statement has to be the most ignorant I have ever read. It is man, not religion or any god, that developed the survival technique of cooperation.
You don't kill my people and my people won't kill your people. You don't steal from me, and I don't steal from you. I guess your bloodline skipped
that part of evolution.

Don't insult my bloodline. That is immature on your part, and says that you aren't developed enough to make a point without resorting to childish
techniques. Also, those rules come from the OT. The commandments were designed to allow an unruly tribe to survive without killing each other off.
Same goes for much older civilizations, whose laws also originated with religious figures reputed to be connected with a higher being.

In a time where a priest was the official equivalent of a congressman, the word of a divine being was considered sacred. And those who could convey
such words were also considered sacred, as you didn't often come across a person who could regularly commune with such beings.

Egyptian, Aztec, Mayan, Mesopotamian, Babylonian, Nordic, all those cultures had great reverence for any holy man. Especially since someone who was
obviously a friend of the gods could probably call their wrath down at a moment's notice, and their demise or affront would probably purchase a hefty
dose of misfortune for the idiot who dared to cross them. Superstition is a powerful thing.

I should add that though some of their superstition wasn't worth the papyrus it was written on, there is a fair portion that actually conceals the
intellectual equivalent of gold. You just have to be able to venture outside the box and down the road a block or two to catch a glimpse. Due, of
course, to how small the box has become.

I would venture further, but that discussion is for another topic at another time. If you want further information, I recommend you research Thoth and
his records. I doubt you will, but that is the price of chosen ignorance. You might believe, but those beliefs will not be informed. They will be
pride, and they will be distaste. And we all know pride and distaste were the things that got Galileo imprisoned for daring to reveal the truth about
the Earth and the sun.

Only two kinds of people would do that: someone interested in world domination, and one interested in genocide.

That's the heart of the idea though. No Self-respecting human being would even begin to think such a thing.
I wasn't targeting Christians specifically but any religion that has used violence as a means to an end.

Haha. Yes, but isn't that how it has ALWAYS worked? We emulate those we admire. Not just the religious, but the nonreligious as well. Atheists can
still be political, and how many politicians could watch Iran or Israel or Korea or Syria sink into the ocean and smile over their glass of wine?

I do. I was being subjective. Objectively, a human could push the button but i'm more inclined to believe that they would be religious due to
the tensions between them.

There's much more reason to do such a thing if you believed the world and all who inhabited it only have one chance.

That would be more of a reason they would not use it. 1 life to live.
I have a high sense of morality with no reason to believe in judgement.
I am no more inclined to kill with viral weaponry then a peaceful Christian.
Religion has nothing to do with THAT.
What religion does have to do with this is that it creates the divisions necessary to use such a weapon.

So do the atheists. Just being called an atheist means you have created a division. Any sort of label creates a division. The moment you label
something, you have named it and categorized it, and an opposite is defined. It isn't hard to identify that opposite, is it?

Atheists are just as guilty, and just as passionate. They are even fighting to abolish religion. And the best part is, they can't even prove religion
is wrong in any sense without a human rights argument. They rely on faith just as much as Christians. They may have evidence, but they don't
recognize the box has something inside of it. They don't look in it, and so they never see the deeper meaning. They use the box for evidence, when
the box CONTAINS evidence as well. Wait until our science advances. You think either side knows ANYTHING? Scientists have conclusively proven NOTHING,
and therefore no one on this thread can say anything except they BELIEVE this or they DISBELIEVE that. And that's justification for labeling and
condemning one another.

Can't we all just admit we don't know?

You sound like Vegeta

That's a cultural idea. In our Centrist society that just doesn't fly.

In order to understand, you must see all sides. Even if you must switch from Goku to Vegeta to Frieze to Gohan and back again. You cannot understand
fully if you have not seen from other perspectives, because there is never only one side. Even a drawing has two sides.

Those are the types of people that are being fought by people like us daily, whether subtly or directly.

Sorry to break it to you, but we see those people on our television, delivering speeches on a pedestal, EVERY DAY.

I'll answer your second half later or tomorrow when I have more time.
I can't put as much detail into my ideas as i'd like, yours was very well thought out.

I have spent months studying the human race and the universe. I am hunting the Holy Grail, and while I haven't found it, I have found many jewels
along the way. It's been a very rewarding journey, and it isn't over yet. Maybe I'm not even halfway. But I will continue, because I find it...far
more interesting than the mundane lifestyle I am encouraged to participate.

We are encouraged to build a golden road to a mysterious land, and I don't know if I support that destination or not. So I'm not building a path for
another poor sheep to follow unless I know I can be at peace with where they will inevitably end up. I don't care what the world leaders say, I want
to know if I can respect our ultimate destination as a global community. That's why I joined ATS, so I can discover these answers with the help of
you and everyone else. At the moment, I am on the wayside, conversing with fellows who come by and trying to puzzle out where this brick road came
from, who's running the construction, where it's going, who created the world in which we're building it, and what the whole purpose of the world
was.

When I figure out what we're supposed to do as a species, and I know that we're well on the way, that is when I'll start laying golden bricks. And
not a moment sooner. I will not let my crimes in this age rest upon the children of the next. It is our responsibility to keep them safe, and our
mistakes will span years and years into the future. What do you think? Will the future be safe for our species? Take a look around and answer that
honestly.

Don't insult my bloodline. That is immature on your part, and says that you aren't developed enough to make a point without resorting to childish
techniques. Also, those rules come from the OT. The commandments were designed to allow an unruly tribe to survive without killing each other off.
Same goes for much older civilizations, whose laws also originated with religious figures reputed to be connected with a higher being.

Childish? Do you think I'm blind? You've been passive-aggressively insulting me throughout our entire chat! I've tolerated it up to now, but the
other things you wrote in this post show that you are either very young or very immature. So, I've had enough of you. Believing that those rules came
from the OT is just plain ignorant.

i think science dropped the ball on virus's. if we would have left well enough alone, sure more people would die, but virus's wouldnt be mutating
and becoming stronger and faster. in the end science is just setting us up for a super virus to kill billions at once instead of a smaller more
spread out death toll.

You could be right, but I think it's the population that's setting us up for a big kill - not science. We can travel anywhere and everywhere around
the world and spread death via the virus we carry. Odds are that civilized man could kill himself off, leaving what's left of the isolated tribes in
the jungles to carry on.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.